THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS

MARCH 2017
CAPITOL RESEARCH
TRANSPORTATION POLICY

The State of Transportation Performance Management

Congress approved legislation in 2012 known as
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, or
MAP-21, that not only provided two years of funding
for transportation programs and a variety of policy
changes after nearly three years of short-term exten-
sions but also set in motion a process that continues
today, even after minor tweaks were made in 2015s
five-year Fixing Americas Surface Transportation, or
FAST, Act. States and planning organizations have
been working with the Federal Highway Administra-
tion, or FHWA, to implement a performance-based
approach to the federal highway program.
Performance management will transform the Fed-
eral-aid highway program and provide a means to the
most efficient investment of Federal transportation
funds by refocusing on national transportation goals,
increasing the accountability and transparency of the
Federal-aid highway program, and improving project
decision making through performance-based planning
and programming, read the declaration of policy in
the law.
The law goes on to say that it is in the interest of
the United States to focus the program on seven
national goals, including: The law required promulgation of rules to establish
Safety: To achieve a significant reduction in traffic performance measures and standards not later than 18
fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. months after MAP-21s July 2012 enactment. It required
the U.S. secretary of transportation to establish mini-
Infrastructure condition: To maintain the highway
mum standards for states to use in developing and
infrastructure asset system in a state of good repair.
operating bridge and pavement management systems
Congestion reduction: To achieve a significant reduc- and measures for states to use in assessing the condition
tion in congestion on the national highway system. of pavements on the interstate system and national
System reliability: To improve the efficiency of the highway system, the condition of bridges on the national
surface transportation system. highway system and the performance of the interstate
Freight movement and economic vitality: To improve and national highway systems. The secretary was also
the National Highway Freight Network, strengthen required to establish measures for states to use in
the ability of rural communities to access national assessing serious injuries and fatalities per vehicle mile
and international trade markets, and support regional traveled and the number of serious injuries and fatal-
economic development. ities, measures to assess traffic congestion and on-road
mobile source emissions, and measures to assess freight
Environmental sustainability: To enhance the perfor- movement on the interstate system.
mance of the transportation system while protecting In addition, the law required each state to set per-
and enhancing the natural environment. formance targets that reflect these measures not later
Reduced project delivery delays: To reduce project than one year after the promulgation of final rules.
costs, promote jobs and the economy, and expedite States were also required to submit a report to the U.S.
the movement of people and goods by accelerating secretary of transportation within four years of the
project completion through eliminating delays in the enactment of MAP-21 describing the condition and per-
project development and delivery process, including formance of the national highway system in the state,
reducing regulatory burdens and improving agencies the effectiveness of the investment strategy document
The Council of State Governments
work practices. in the state asset management plan for the national

1
 Performance Management Final Rules Required by MAP-21
MAP-21 Rules
Safety Performance Management Measures
Highway Safety Improvement Program
Statewide and Non-Metropolitan Transportation Planning;
Metropolitan Transportation Planning
Highway Asset Management Plans for the National Highway System
Metropolitan Planning Organization Coordination and
Planning Area Reform
Pavement and Bridge Condition Measures on the
National Highway System
Performance of the National Highway System,
Freight Movement on the Interstate System and
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
highway system, progress in achieving performance
targets and the ways in which the state is addressing
congestion at freight bottlenecks.1
On Jan. 18, 2017, just two days before the change in
administrations, the Federal Highway Administration
published the final rules for the last two national per-
formance management measure regulations.2 That
milestone presents an opportunity to check in on how
state departments of transportation and their partners
are faring in their efforts to implement a system with
the potential to improve transparency and account-
ability, project selection and states ability to make the
case for additional future funding as well as to achieve
significant gains in the areas the measures are designed
to highlight.
Embracing Performance Management
at Transportation Agencies
At the Transportation Research Board annual meeting
in Washington, D.C., in January 2017, two panels of
transportation professionals weighed in on how well
performance management has become ingrained in the
transportation community in the years since MAP-21.
I believe it has been embraced (over the last sev-
eral years) and there is a better understanding of what
the goals of performance management are and the
performance measures within those disciplines, said
Mike Patterson, executive director of the Oklahoma
Department of Transportation. But there are still some
challenges to understand exactly at the federal level
2 THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS
Rule
Final Rule
Effective
Published
Date
March 15, 2016 April 14, 2016
March 15, 2016 April 14, 2016
May 27, 2016 June 27, 2016
Oct. 24, 2016 Oct. 2, 2017
Dec. 20, 2016 Jan. 19, 2017
Jan. 18, 2017 March 21, 2017
Jan. 18, 2017 March 21, 2017
(how to) put us on an even plane and measure certain
aspects of our daily lives. But I will tell you that every
state has performance measures and performance
management beyond what is required by the federal
government.
Despite all the activity in recent years, performance
measurement and management in transportation are
hardly recent developments. For some states, their
experience goes back 20 years. That doesnt mean the
journey has always been smooth, said Walter Butch
Waidelich, who now serves as acting deputy adminis-
trator of the Federal Highway Administration.
I do think at the national level where we struggled
was how do you tell that story with a level of consis-
tency from state to state around the country at that
high level, Waidelich said.
While the focus of most of the early performance
measurement efforts in the 1990s was on improving
transportation operations, other outcomes have
become more of the focus in recent years, said Emil
Frankel, a senior fellow at the Eno Center for
Transportation.
The question I think were really beginning to
struggle with (in) MAP-21 and the rulemaking that has
gone on at the Federal Highway Administration (is)
how we measure whether or not investments are being
made and operational programs are being implemented
in a way to advance broader social, national and public
purposes, he said. I think that has been more difficult
for many state agencies and MPOs to get their arms
around. We have a long way to go in that regard.3
How Transformational is
Performance Management?
Transportation professionals say the evolution of
performance management has been transformational
in a variety of ways, including moving from a project
focus to a system focus.
With the implementation of the new rules, we are
seeing a cultural shift going from local decision-making
and looking at one (transportation) asset in isolation
to actually a global, system-wide, lets put the system
first and lets make decisions based on that first, said
Christos Xenophontos, assistant director at the Rhode
Island Department of Transportation. For a lot of
(state) DOTs, thats actually something new. We have
been very one-dimensional in nature in thinking about
roads and bridges and a lot of times forgetting about
other assets in that process.
One positive side effect of that shift to a system-wide
focus is that it has brought additional transportation
stakeholders to the table and allowed them to better
communicate with each other, explained Todd Lang,
director of transportation planning at the Baltimore
Metropolitan Council, the metropolitan planning
organization, or MPO, serving the Baltimore region.
Sometimes pavement was measured at a different
level (between) state DOTs and local governments.
Now were bringing in additional players such as
transit agencies and local governments into that pro-
gram, said Lang. So I think what it does is it finally
starts to have that across the board conversation at
least in some key areas.
Others note, however, that true transformation is
likely to take time and some transportation agencies will
proceed at their own pace and level of sophistication.
I think were finally selling performance manage-
ment as a good business practice and I think more and
more the state DOTs and MPOs understand now that
its good business practice to measure performance and
to use performance to guide their decision making,
said Bud Wright, executive director of the American
Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials, or AASHTO. As with any cultural change,
its going to take time and its going to be inconsistent
across our 52 members.4
Performance Management
and Decision-Making
Indeed many are hopeful that better transportation
decision-making can be an important outcome of
these efforts.
Performance management isnt going to make bad
decisions; people are, said FHWAs Waidelich. But
my hope is with the increase in coordination with stake-
holders involved and transparency well actually have
better decisions. Are they going to be perfect? No.
(But) were going to work through this.
Still, its unlikely that political considerations and
other factors can ever be eliminated from the decision-
making calculus, AASHTOs Wright noted.
There are a lot of variables other than just the
objective outputs of a performance management system
that state and local decision makers have to take into
account and not the least of them is your legislature
and the expectations that they have and the fact that
in many states, still, theres an expectation that all parts
of the state are going to share in the resources that are
available to a state, he said.
Wright pointed to his home state of Virginia, where
some might argue that spending transportation dollars
anywhere outside the population centers of Northern
Virginia and the Tidewater region is perhaps not the
most efficient use of those dollars.
But the political reality is youre never going to
manage a program that doesnt acknowledge that the
rest of the state exists, Wright said. Just because the
model says that this is where we should be investing
isnt necessarily going to be the decision that is always
made within a state department of transportation or
within a local government.
Enos Frankel believes thats perfectly OK and
improvement in transportation decision-making is still
within the grasp of state officials as a result of perfor-
mance management.
Its been my own experience, particularly at the
state level, (that) its either a highly politicized pro-
cess or sometimes driven understandably by engineers
who are concerned about condition of bridges and
they understandably make proposals to deal with the
bridges in the worst condition even though it may
not be the most important economically to the state,
he said. We can improve the process, I think, by
introducing better analytical tools, more effective uti-
lization of datareal-time data in terms of performance
of the systemso that we can make not perfect but
better strategic decisions about where limited, scarce
investment resources are going.
But Xenophontos of the Rhode Island Department
of Transportation has another concern about perfor-
mance-driven decision making. He said even though
states may have limited resources available, its impor-
tant to continue to allocate funds across a variety of
transportation assets.
One of the biggest fears we have with the new rules
is unintentionally enforcing a worst first approach,
Xenophontos said. Rhode Island ranks 50th among
50 states when it comes to the condition of our bridges.
We know that is a priority. But sometimes when people
compare you with other DOTs and want to know why
you are 50th in the country and there is that pressure
to ignore other classes of assets in order to improve
more rapidly in one particular one. That is a fear not
just in Rhode Island. I think that is a fear that we share
(with other state) DOTs.5
It should be noted that the Ocean State has hopes
of turning that 50 out of 50 ranking around in the years
ahead. In 2016, Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo
signed legislation to fund a multi-year bridge repair
program with a new toll on large commercial trucks and
a combination of borrowing and refinancing.6
THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS 3
 Transparency and Accountability
Performance management also allows transportation
agencies to be transparent and accountable when it
comes to how decisions are made not only as far as
which projects to undertake but which measures to
focus on.
Youve got to set targets and youre going to have to
explain why youre not setting an aggressive target for
safety but you are for bridge conditions, said FHWAs
Waidelich. I think its going to transform the way
departments of transportation and MPOs actually com-
municate to the public and actually get ahead of this
data and information as those decisions are being made.
Many believe that transparency and accountability
can be important in convincing the public that trans-
portation dollars are being spent well.
What weve been dealing with increasingly, I think,
over the last 15 or 20 years if not longer has been dis-
trust of experts, anger at government, said Enos
Frankel. We have to do the best we can in terms of
making sure the decision-making process is as analyt-
ically sound as possible, as defensible, as accountable,
but ultimately were dealing in an environment in
which Im more concerned about the radio talk show
people who just pan everything thats done in order
to get listeners.7
Working Together: State Departments of
Transportation and MPOs
As already noted, one element critical to the success
of implementing performance management is coop-
eration between transportation stakeholders. State
departments of transportation in many cases already
have been able to strengthen their relationships with
metropolitan planning organizations in particular to
forge improved planning processes. But challenges
remain.
There are different relationships between MPOs
and states all across the country. There are no two MPOs
that are the same. All the states are different, said
Todd Lang of the Baltimore Metropolitan Council.
This is an opportunity for us all to be on the same
language, talking about the same topics. (But) I think
its going to be a challenge because its an evolving
relationship.
Bud Wright of AASHTO said many state DOTs have
come to a realization that a contentious relationship
no longer makes much sense in an age when coordina-
tion is needed to achieve common goals.
Its not us versus them any longer, Wright said. I a first step and more will need to be done in the future
think there is much more of a recognition that MPOs
and state DOTs working together is the model thats
going to yield success and were seeing much more of
that. We can point to many successful relationships
around the country where there is that conversation
and where there is shared responsibility and account-
ability for decision making and it works.
But state and local transportation agencies continue
to face challenges. Enos Frankel noted that at one
4 THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS
point his small state of Connecticut had 13 MPOs
serving a population of only about 3 million and most
of them were too small to be able to carry out the
tasks assigned to them.
Many agencies are still under-resourced in order
to collect and analyze data and to use it effectively in
the decision-making process, Frankel said. So the one
thing that seems clear to me is with the goal of having
better relations between MPOs and DOTs, we need to
look at the fundamentals of those agencies and make
sure that as they cooperate that they are adequately
resourced and sized to carry out the tasks that they
need to.
Ultimately though, cooperation simply makes sense
because of how the public views the transportation
system.
Our constituency, our users, our customers dont
really know whether its a city street, a county road or
a (state) highway, said Patterson of the Oklahoma
Department of Transportation. They just want good
transportation. And we have to band together to make
that happen.8
Performance Measures and Priorities
With MAP-21, Congress set in motion a path toward
performance measurement that not only tackles mea-
sures that are easy for states to get their heads around
such as safety and the condition of roads and bridges,
but also more complex concepts potentially fraught
with challenges such as congestion mitigation and air
quality.
Safety is quantifiable, said Enos Frankel. You can
set targets. Its much, much more difficult obviously
when you start talking about congestion management
or (whether) a transportation investment or set of
investments (is) contributing to economic growth.
Once states start measuring things, they must also
decide which things they want to seek to improve,
said AASHTOs Wright.
How do you prioritize safety versus pavement
performance versus bridge condition versus congestion
relief? he said. Safety is one of the more unique ones
in a way (because) its not just investment decisions
that are going to make a difference. There are legislative
decisions. There are other sorts of educational decisions
that can be made within a state to affect that.
Transportation experts say for the most part Congress
got things right in the measures and goals they chose
to highlight in the MAP-21 legislation. But it was just
to clarify which national goals are of highest priority
and to expand the universe of measures as new data and
measurement tools become available.
I think (Congress) hit the right themes, said
AASHTOs Wright. I think they have taken the right
steps forward. Do I think that the things were measur-
ing today or will be measuring soon are the things well
be measuring 20 years from now? No. I think all of us
recognize that this is a system that has to evolve.
 Wright also noted that there has been impatience
in some quarters that Congress did not go far enough,
that not enough is being measured and particularly that
there are few penalties in place if states fail to meet
their targets.
(But) I dont think any of that would be productive
and it could end up being extremely counterproduc-
tive, said Wright. So I would say more or less yes,
they did get it right. But I would also say that Id be
shocked if were not evolving to much more sophisti-
cated measures as we go forward.
Enos Frankel agreed that for Congress to have over-
reached in MAP-21 would have been counterproductive
but he said as performance management evolves there
will eventually need to be consequences.
If were really going to have accountability as a
part of performance management, I think states and
localities have to be accountable, he said. There
have to be consequences, whether it comes in the form
of rewards for good performance, achieving or surpass-
ing targets or loss of funds if targets that have been
established at the state and metropolitan level have
not been achieved. So over time I hope we will move
towards a truly accountable system where there are
consequences for not achieving the targets that have
been established by state agencies and MPOs
themselves.
But it may be increasingly challenging for the powers
that be in Washington to carry a big stick on perfor-
mance for one very important reason.
The proportion of the total investment thats
happening in transportation in this country that comes
from the federal government is declining, not increas-
ing, said Wright. So any scenario that suggests that
the federal government exerts influence over 100 per-
cent of what goes on in state and local areas, to me, is
misguided.9
Using Performance Management
to Tell the Story
For transportation agencies, performance measure-
ment can be an important tool in shaping the narrative
about transportation investment and decision-making.
Communicating to the public and to legislators
and to others what youre able to do and what youre
not able to do given the resources that are available
I think controlling that narrative from the beginning
is an important element in all of this, Wright said.10
The Washington State Department of Transportation,
or WSDOT, has made a name for itself in performance
measurement with The Gray Notebook, a quarterly
performance and accountability report that was first
produced in 2001. The publication tracks transporta-
tion projects both successful and unsuccessful and
trends in statewide transportation policy goals such
as safety, preservation, congestion relief, environment,
and economic vitality and stewardship. State trans-
portation officials say the transparency has allowed
them to justify three gas tax increases over the years, the
most recent in 2015.11 The Gray Notebook also has
won numerous awards for its approach to government
performance reporting.
But Daniela Bremmer, who heads WSDOTs Division
of Strategic Assessment and Performance Analysis,
said the way data is presented must constantly evolve.
You cannot just create a dashboard or create a
performance report and be good, she said. You might
be good for a year or two and then you have a new
legislative makeup or you might have a change in the
governors office or you might have a change in your
audiences or priorities or something really bad happens
like a natural disaster and all of a sudden theyre saying
no, we want this kind of information and this is how we
want it.12
Trump Administration and
Performance Management
So what does a change in administrations mean for per-
formance management? Most say it appears likely that
implementation plans will continue to move forward
with Republicans in charge of both the White House
and Congress.
I think the reality is it transcends administrations,
said FHWAs Waidelich. This has been coming for a
long time. (MAP-21) came from a Republican Con-
gress. My sense is there may be different thoughts
about itmaybe how to implement itcoming down
the line but as far as a general direction that were
headed, I think Im not putting the brakes on at this
point and Im not sure anybody else is. I dont think
theres reason to worry about that.
Others have more concern however.
I think that theres some reason to fear that this
administration will come in with different ideas, among
them flexibility to state departments of transportation
and MPOs with their funding, said AASHTOs Wright.
64
WSDOTs quarterly performance report on transportation systems, programs, and department management
To access this report, click on
Quarter ending December 31, 2016 Published February 2017 Roger Millar, Secretary of Transportation, PE AICP
Always on
our minds the text link, the thumbnail,
the URL (below) or visit the
WSDOT working hard
to promote safe and
healthy habits among
its employees
p. 12
Washington State Department
Driving toward of Transportation website.
a smoother ride
WSDOT continues efforts
to preserve and maintain
pavement statewide
p. 13
Making tracks The Council of State Governments (CSG) makes
across the state
WSDOTs freight rail
no claim as to involvement in the content or
production of the report and provides a link to the
program definitely
pulling its weight
p. 32 report only as a service to readers interested in
Strategic Goal: XXX GNB Edition 59 September 30, 2015 | 1
state government performance measurement.
Washington state DOT
https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Accountability/GrayNotebook/navigateGNB.htm
THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS 5
 Wright said his organization will seek to articulate
the importance of performance management to the new
administration should its worth be challenged.
We want to ensure accountability for all funds, in-
cluding federal dollars, and as long as theres going to
be a federal program, I dont think that theres any
better way to ensure accountability for the use of those
dollars than through performance management sys-
tems, he said.13
Future of Performance Management
Many believe the future is bright for performance man-
agement but MAP-21 and the rulemakings on transpor-
tation measures were only the start. States and MPOs
are likely to add their own priorities and their own
measures to the process in the years ahead.
But transportation agencies face challenges in devel-
oping the data, resources and tools that can make per-
formance management effective. Xenophontos of the
Rhode Island Department of Transportation noted that
on data, the issues that will need to be resolved include
who is responsible for collecting it and how long it
will be stored. On resources, two primary concerns will
be how to build institutional capacity at state DOTs
and other agencies and how to pay for data collection
when no dedicated funding exists for performance man-
agement. Xenophontos also said better data analysis
I am hopeful that performance management and all
thats involved in itgreater use of data, stronger ana-
lytical tools, better cooperation between the agencies
will lead to what we need in terms of these investments
really comprehensive, strategic programs where
investments are prioritized and targeted and resources
are targeted on the most important and beneficial
projects, said Enos Frankel.14
RESOURCES
1
National goals and performance management. Title 23-Highways. U.S. Code. Chapter
1-Federal-Aid Highways. Accessed from: http://uscode.house.gov/view.
xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title23-section150&num=0&edition=prelim#sourcecre
dit.
2
Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Publishes Performance Management Final
Rules Required by MAP-21. Accessed from: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/rule.cfm.
3
Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting. Workshop 151: Welcome to the New
Performance Management Paradigm. Jan. 8, 2017.
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.
6
Ted Nesi, Steph Machado and Perry Russom. Raimondo signs RI truck tolls plan into
law, WPRI.com. Feb. 11, 2016. Accessed from: http://wpri.com/2016/02/11/
truck-tolls-clear-ri-senate-heading-to-gov/.
7
Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting.
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid.
Washington State Department of Transportation. The Gray Notebook. November 2016.
11

Accessed from: http://wsdot.wa.gov/publications/fulltext/graynotebook/Sep16.pdf.

tools will be needed to make sure that state DOTs are 12
Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting.
better equipped to predict future conditions based on 13
Ibid.
current and past conditions reflected in the data.
14
Ibid.
We know that performance management works, but
it is also a process of continuous improvement so you
are never really done with performance management, Sean Slone, Director, CSG Transportation and Infrastructure Policy,
sslone@csg.org
he said. So past MAP-21, we see this as a continuous
journey of getting better and better every day.
And many are convinced that performance manage-
ment ultimately will help agencies make the case to
policymakers and the public about the soundness of
their investment decisions and the need for additional
transportation funding in the future.

6 THE COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS